Institute of Sociology
of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology
of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Dolgova E.A., Malinov A.V., Slissova V.V. Theoretical human-tag sciences (based on the materials of the manuscript N.I. Kareeva General Methodology of Humanities). Questions of Philosophy. 2021. No. 5. Pð. 94–107. DOI: 10.21146 ...



Dolgova E.A., Malinov A.V., Slissova V.V. Theoretical human-tag sciences (based on the materials of the manuscript N.I. Kareeva General Methodology of Humanities). Questions of Philosophy. 2021. No. 5. Pð. 94–107. DOI: 10.21146/0042-8744-2021-5-94-107
ISSN 0042-8744
DOI 10.21146/0042-8744-2021-5-94-107
ÐÈÍÖ: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=45719234

Posted on site: 07.09.21

 


Abstract

The article deals with the philosophical and methodological views of N.I. Kareev (1850-1931) whose name was usually associated with World History studies. Based on the materials of the partially published work “General Methodology of Humanities”, the authors put the question of the relevance of Kareev’s theoretical and methodological research at the time of paper’s writing. The authors note that Kareev interpreted the concept of “humanities” as broadly as possible. This concept includes the Social Studies, which he opposed to the Natural sciences and set them apart from the “cultural”. It can be considered that Kareev’s enthusiasm for the philosophical theories was caused by his personal interest and the necessity of historiography to justify its scientific and cognitive status. The article is accompanied by the extract of the sixth chapter “Theoretical Humanities” of the work “General Methodology of Humanities” dedicated to the theoretical problems of studying the phenomena that represent the subjects of the humanities. In the published fragments Kareev tried to trace how these two directions were formed in the humanities: the theoretical (deductive method) and the historical (inductive method). He interpreted the development of science as a transition from metaphysics to empirical knowledge based on facts. The authors conclude that by the time the text was prepared (early 1920s), Kareev’s approach was perceived as outdated.